UK Transport

2002-11-28T15:14:00.000Z

UK Transport has moved...

to www.transportblog.com and changed its name to Transport Blog. That should stop the complaints.

2002-11-22T18:51:00.001Z

Right diagnosis - wrong treatment

This guy gets it almost completely right until he starts talking about solutions. And he mentions Barbara Castle.

In fact Barbara Castle is the author of many of our current problems. For it was she who ended the closures of the branch lines. Had these unprofitable (and still unprofitable) lines been closed then British Rail would have been capable of making a profit and would have been privatised in much the same way as British Telecom, Rolls Royce and British Airways. But it wasn't profitable so politicians had to design a bizarre Heath Robinson scheme to keep the subsidy flowing.

And we all know what that led to.

2002-11-22T18:51:00.000Z

PPP

Excellent article in the Telegraph. I really can't think of anything to add except that on the main line railways similar formulas were introduced last year - and no one understood them either.

Oh, and there's another article here on the same subject by the same people.

2002-11-21T17:29:00.000Z

Women-only carriages

There's been a call for women-only carriages on London's Underground. It would not be a new idea - they were around for about a 100 years and were only abolished in the 1960s. Why I wonder? Strangely enough they have also recently been introduced on some lines in Tokyo.

Although they would probably be a good idea I can't help feeling that it's a case of running away from the problem which makes me feel uneasy.

2002-11-21T17:23:00.000Z

Scottish Airports

David Farrer comments on the need for enforced competition. Which is something I don't like. But in the next paragraph he points out why it is needed: because the politicians won't allow the building of a new airport.

This is just so absolutely typical. Another example of government action being needed to clear up the mess created by previous government action.

2002-11-20T13:39:00.000Z

A passenger - manager exchange

Recently the BBC appointed a commuters' champion, Jon Yuill and last week they published the result of an e-mail exchange between him and Dave Kaye, Managing Director of First Great Eastern which is one of the better train operators.

There are many aspects of this exchange which I found galling but the thing that really got me was that attitude of Kaye, the railwayman. It would appear that at some point in the past the contents of his brain were scooped out and replaced with mangagement consultant-speak - you know the sort of thing that is so wonderfully mocked by the BT adverts.

This (from Kaye in response to a question about late-night security) got right up my nose:

I will look at additional security staff, particularly in the evenings and on late night trains where more disruption and anti-social behaviour is likely to occur.

Why haven't you looked at it before? Is anti-social behaviour a new thing? I doubt it. Why don't you arrest these people? Why don't you ban them from the railway? Why don't you offer passengers rewards for catching vandals and other criminals? After all, if you are a criminal a train is really bad place to commit a crime. All it requires is one person to pull the communication cord and you are trapped. There is nowhere to go.

If it is the fact that you (the train operator) cannot do something because the government won't allow you then say so.

Right now, what the industry desperately needs is some straight-talking especially from the people on the ground who know what's going on. It needs people who are prepared to take responsibility - people who say "I am going to solve this problem and this is how I am going to do it." If they can't solve the problem then they should state why not. If it's the government's fault they should say so. And loudly.

There is perhaps a mitigating factor in all this. Train operators owe their existence to the Government. A train operator who constantly (rightly or wrongly) shifts the blame on to the government can probably kiss its franchise goodbye. But right now, the whole franchising system is in a state of flux, with shorter terms, greater restrictions and smaller profits. Frankly, many of the operators have little to lose by saying it the way it is. If you are going to go down you may as well enjoy yourself.

2002-11-19T20:12:00.000Z

Buses, passengers and privatisation

State bus bars "too wet" boy. Story from Freedom and Whisky. David Farrer reckons that it would have been a different story had it been a private bus. I must admit I'm not so sure. For starters we don't know the full story - the "wet" excuse could have been just that.

But private buses might choose to turn away all sorts of passengers for all sorts of reasons. CrozierBus, for instance, will turn away anyone wearing shell suits, hoods, Nike trainers or bad hairuts. I wouldn't want to be a man with a pierced ear, lip, eyebrow or tongue either. Personal stereos and mobile phones, if used, will be smashed. And anyone engaging in vandalism will be keel-hauled with the bus in motion.

Wet passengers may be asked to stand. Why am I so soft?

2002-11-19T19:40:00.000Z

Tolls in Sydney

Tim Blair has the lowdown so I guess the whole world heard of this one before it appeared here. The interesting thing is that tolls have been introduced, highways have been built, more cars are on the road and they move faster. So much for the "more roads means more congestion" argument. By the way, many of the tolls are electronic.

This brings me (surprisingly I must admit) to an opinion I don't think I've ever fully expressed. I believe that the future lies with roads. Sure I talk about trains and I like trains (or at least I like the idea of trains) but in Britain as in most of the English-speaking world they account for a miniscule proportion of the transport market.

Roads and cars are where people want to be. They are door to door. Almost all cars are compatible with almost all roads. They are private. You can escape the thugs and other louts who loiter on trains and buses. They can be extraordinarily efficient. You can listen to the radio. For many long journeys they are faster. I believe that roads are cheaper to build and maintain (but I'm not sure on that one).

Sure, there are some things that trains are very good at. They are very good at moving large numbers of people from point A to point B quickly. Electric trains don't pollute. You can read on them. It is for these reasons that they are likely to have a role in transport in high-density urban areas for some time.

However, we shouldn't get hung up on trains no matter how hard that sometimes might be. All forms of transport ultimately owe their existence to how useful they are to people and for the forseeable future roads and cars will hold sway.

2002-11-19T09:54:00.001Z

Change of topic

Earlier this month I announced that I would be doing a talk on Japanese Railways. After a chat with the host, Brian Micklethwait, we decided to make it "Aspects of Japan" instead. Otherwise, the details are the same.

2002-11-19T09:54:00.000Z

Metra update

One of the good things about having proper comments is that in the future people will just be able to bung things up there. Anyway, the discussion about Metra was before then so I got e-mails and then didn't put them up.

Tom Otteson wrote:

I read you blog occasionaly as I am interested in transportation issues. I am very glad that you mentioned the metra, which is actually a very excellent transportation system. I rode the metra every day for 2 years making a daily 30 mile commute.

The nice part of the metra is that it is always on time and the central stations are highly efficient and located in the most dense area of downtown chicago. The problem with metra is the relentless centralization of the system. I lived without a car and counted on the system to get me to places in the suburbs where I worked. In order to take the train to an area 2 or 3 miles from where I was, I had to take the train back to downtown to catch another branch.

All this system needs to be almost perfect is a connector between the lines to the airports and other dense areas in the suburbs. Before I left, this was being proposed by one of the systems that runs metra. Once this link is complete, metra will probably be the best commuter train system in the us - this system goes to actually multiple states, and serves fairly well to link a pretty huge metropolitain area. It is "only" 8 million people, but comparable in area to London which is much denser than american cities. this system is as good as it gets for this country when the link is completed and is absolutely something for you to watch.

And then he further wrote:

I just had another thought about Metra in regards to the multiple ownership of the lines and how that works. Because the centralization of the lines means that they all end in the 9x9 block square area of downtown chicago, basically each of the four systems has their own terminal that are located 1 or 2 blocks from each other, so the end result is that all the lines have totally separated infrastructure and only have to coordinate together in areas very close in to downtown. It seems that the Metra was set up in a very similar fashion to how the Chicago El [Elevated Railway? - Ed] was made and the end results of the system layouts are very similar.

Just for your info, this is an outline of how the Chicago El was set up - it had different companies owning a line that went far out into the suburbs and met in the downtown. At some point, someone built a loop around downtown to link the lines and sometime after that it was taken over by the government. It has also resulted in a system that is highly centralized and could be made into one of the best systems in the country with an outer loop - just like metra.

Ah, loop lines. Except very close to the centre eg London's Circle Line, I fear they're doomed. Railways need density and while that exists for radial journeys it rarely does so for tangental journeys.

2002-11-18T19:51:00.000Z

Mussolini did not make the trains run on time

See Snopes. Link via Survival Arts.

2002-11-18T19:34:00.000Z

Comments

UK Transport has comments. It can now march on into the second half of the Blog revolution. Seriously, I had grave doubts about their usefulness. I had a lot of experience with newsgroups and the appalling anti-social behaviour that goes on there and thought the same would apply to blogs. But having looked at many it would appear that this is not the case. Mind you that doesn't mean that UK Transport won't prove to be the exception that proves the rule.

2002-11-17T09:53:00.000Z

As promised, this is what my Malaysian correspondent had to say about transport in Malaysia:

I was a student in Manchester for about 6 years before I came back in 1998. While I was there, I found the train service to be quite good, except a few times when there were delays. The bus services during peak hours are also quite punctual. And there was not much traffic jams. Compared to many cities in South East Asia, I think the British are really lucky to such good and reliable transport systems [what!]. Hence, I think the current criticisms on the British Rail are partly politically motivated.

In Malaysia, I live in Kuala Lumpur, the capital. I live about 12 km away from where I work, so I drive. Nonetheless, if I want to get the work fast, I have to take a highway and pay a toll of RM1.60 dollars [about 30p] which will allow me to get there in 10-12 minutes. There is another highway with a cheaper toll of RM1.00, but there's a bit of jam before I can get to the highway. The third route I can take is toll-free, but with the jam, it takes me 25 minutes to get to work.

The public transport in Malaysia is ghastly unreliable; we have no set time-table for the buses, unlike in UK. So, one could wait sometimes up to 1 hour for a bus to appear. Thus, most people drive to work, despite the traffic jams.

For longer distance travel, the number one choice is still to drive. Although one has to pay toll across the highway, bu it is safer than taking a coach although coach is much cheaper than driving. The trains are too slow. Usually people only take trains when they don't have a car, don't know how to drive or have a lot of things to transport. Business executives who need to travel to other cities would sometimes fly in order to save time.

KL is the only city in Malaysia which has a new Light Rail Transit system (something like London underground) within the city. However, when it was first introduced , it received a lot of criticism and low acceptance because the fares too high. This is slowly changing though, and more people are taking the LRT since at least it is more frequent, faster and more reliable than buses.

So, as my grandma used to say "Quit your complaining!"

2002-11-12T20:10:00.000Z

Blogging will be light over the next few days.

2002-11-10T12:01:00.000Z

A Malaysian Mystery

In the unlikely event that readers have been paying close attention to my hit counter over the past two weeks they will have noticed that it has been a bit busier than usual. Whereas I typically get an average of about 37 or so hits a day, it has recently been averaging nearer 70. This was rather puzzling so I decided to do a bit of investigating.

I started by looking at the referrals page of my site meter. I noticed that most referrals were coming from Google searches and most of these included the words "unpunctual" and "train". Curious. I then called up some further details and discovered that a lot of the computers involved were based in Malaysia. Very curious. I also discovered that they were tending to link to one particular post from the past.

I couldn't work out what was going on. My initial (indeed, only) guess was that it must be some sort of jumbo school project - possibly by some teacher bent on demonstrating to his pupils that Malaysia is at least as good as countries abroad. Anyway, I decided to edit the original post to add an update making reference the frenetic state of my hit counter and inviting explanations.

Lo and behold I got a reply from one Chong Pei Pei (I guess we would say it as Pei Pei Chong). He said:

Well, the reason why there were so hits was because we have a newspaper crossword puzzle competition. There was one question which goes like this: "Commuters may describe a persistently unpunctual train service as a " _ _ r _ e" (5-letter word, 3rd letter is "r" and last letter is "e". I, like many others, have been trying to figure out what the answer is. Naturally, I have been trying to search for the answer on the Internet. Sorry to have crowded your server. But I hope that if you know the answer, then maybe you could help out.

So my mystery solved. I did have a go at solving his problem and scratched my head for a while. The best I could come up with were the words "curse" and "farce" which fitted but weren't particularly satisfactory on account of not being specific railway terms. "Farce" was my preferred option - let's just hope it was right.

I then asked Mr Chong if (seeing as I had answered his question) he might tell us a little about the transport system in Malaysia. He very graciously agreed and I will be posting up the reply in the near future.

2002-11-07T21:23:00.000Z

Huffing and puffing at the SRA

Britain's Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) (see diagram and outline for further info) made a big splash yesterday (apologies to overseas readers - you'll have to pay). It said in no uncertain terms and as if it meant it that this time it was going to get serious with all those dreadful rail companies.

The Times would moved to state that this was a good thing. In an article entitled Strategic vision: it is time to correct the faults of rail privatisation it said:

Yesterday’s sweeping reorganisation of train franchises is intended to correct some of the longstanding weaknesses in the privatisation of the railways. Among these are the fragmentation of the system, the conflicts between different train companies using the same London terminus, the persistent failure of some operators to run clean, punctual and reliable trains and the institutionalised confrontation between different sectors of the industry.

Well, up to a point Lord Copper. Yes, it will reduce some fragmentation of the horizontal sort. However, it will do nothing to reduce the real killer, fragmentation of the vertical sort. Nor, will it do anything to get rid of franchising. Indeed, it entrenches the system.

There is also this idea that in the original franchises no one had thought to penalise operators for failing to run trains on time. Not true. The original agreements were shot through with penalties. Indeed, if memory serves me well, one of these clauses led to the largest fine in British corporate history (against South West Trains).

There is also the question of how the SRA intends to measure cleanliness, security and passenger information (not mentioned here but further examples of Key Performance Indicators (KPI)).

Actually, issues like this go to the heart of why railways cannot be run by contract. At the end of the day factors such as cleanliness and security are down to "feel" as much as anything else. I doubt if your average Japanese station manager has any real idea of how he would measure station cleanliness but I bet he knows a clean station when he sees one.

...Thirdly, Mr Bowker has insisted that he is not trying to micromanage the companies or trespass on their commercial freedom to run their franchises as profitable businesses.

This last point is extremely important. Any attempt to intervene in commercial decisions would be disastrous. Already train operators are hemmed in by high regulatory walls. They must report to safety bodies, passenger coalitions, transport planners and independent adjudicators. Their fares can be dictated, their routes laid down and their subsidies altered.

Which is the whole point. Rail privatisation didn't work because rail companies had no freedom. And the latest SRA initiative hasn't granted them anymore. Actually what is going to happen now is that many of the managers who could have made a difference are going to throw the towel in now that they know it is going to be very difficult to do anything entrepreneurial.

The companies are franchisees, not government agencies. They are, of course, subject to public control - but so were the four prewar railway companies.

Well, just a minute. Now, I am not an expert on the chapter and verse of the pre-war rail industry but as far as I am aware there was no control on passenger fares (freight fares were a different story), no enforced fragmentation (precisely the opposite in fact), no franchising, no subsidy, no fines for lateness, or litter, or criminality and very little in the way of regulation. The pre-war railway companies may not have had complete freedom but that I had a good deal more than their present-day successors. They also a ran a very good railway.

2002-11-07T20:06:00.000Z

On getting yourself killed in Barcelona

Iberian Notes has the lowdown. Actually, I think their (non) stats are true for just about everywhere.

2002-11-07T19:12:00.000Z

The Glasgow Underground

Freedom and Whisky's David Farrer e-mails me to tell me that there's been a strike on Glasgow's underground and the strikers have been fired.

I bet you didn't even know there was an underground in Glasgow, did you? If memory serves me correctly it is one of the oldest underground railways in the world. I also understand the trains are very small indeed.

Anyway, the socialists are going to sack their brother drivers are they? Why do I scoff?

2002-11-06T19:52:00.000Z

DVT - an update

I have just come across this factfile produced by the Telegraph. Interesting that American Airlines have increased legroom but not fares. How do they do it?

2002-11-06T18:28:00.000Z

Penn Station

Diane E. from Letter from Gotham gets very upset about the demolition of Penn Station in the 1960s. I still get upset about the demolition of Euston and that was before I was even born.

At the same time my rational side tells me that we do sometimes have to knock down old buildings even if they look nice. Otherwise we fail to progress. Worse still we end up with an appalling housing shortage like we currently do in London. On my trip to Japan the station master at Nagoya told us how Nagoya Station was once the tallest building in Asia. They still knocked it down. Part of me cheered.

When I was about 10 I saw St Pancras Station for the first time. I thought it was the most beautiful building I'd ever seen. I probably still do. In an instant I could see a dilemma which I have never really resolved. On the one hand I could see that the owner had every right to demolish it. On the other I wanted to keep it - without, of course, having to go to the trouble of shelling out any of my own money.

2002-11-05T18:59:00.000Z

Deep Vein Thrombosis

There's a court case on this just started. I object to this sort of thing instinctively. But instincts aren't enough. Sometimes, nay most times, it is the politician's job to rationalise instincts. That way the voters can feel good about themselves. By the way, I didn't think that up all on my own, Enoch Powell said or something very similar a long time ago.

So how do I rationalise my instincts on this one then? Why do I think these suits should fail?

Well, my one-o is that it is all about personal responsibility - you have to take responsibility for your own health. But that's not much of a winner in this day and age.

My two-o is that airlines cannot possibly know which of their passengers is going to get DVT and which aren't.

My three-o (I'll stop there) is that it's going to put up the prices, especially the prices, I, Patrick Crozier, pay. Do I not like that.

The final point I suppose is about choice. If this suit succeeds then it will apply to all carriers. At present there is still the possibility of choice. One carrier might say "can't be bothered" but another might say "Well, look, if you do happen to fly with us and suffer DVT then this is the compensation we will give you.

2002-11-04T20:12:00.000Z

Compensation?

According to this the government is promising to compensate those affected by airport expansion. Maybe, maybe. But will the compensation be adequate? Will it mean a new Act of Parliament or is it just the same, old system? I'm not holding my breath.

2002-11-04T14:37:00.000Z

On calling Talk Sport

This morning, on nationwide talk radio station, Talk Sport's Mike Dickin show, the special guest was Christian Wolmar, the transport journalist. Wolmar is a man I have a great deal of respect for (see here, here and here) and he was on promoting his last book (on railways) and his soon-to-be-released book (on the Tube).

The problem I have with Christian Wolmar is that he attributes the railway's problems to privatisation. As I never (yet) tire of saying, the railway's problems have nothing to do with privatisation and everything to do with franchising and fragmentation. Oh, and various other bits of government interference. This a theme that was recently tackled by Paul Marks on Samizdata.

Despite my efforts to change his views Wolmar seems to remain unmoved and this morning was uttering phrases like "...since privatisation" and "private railway companies".

I felt moved to call.

I have never called a talk show let alone appeared on one but for once decided to give it a go. I dialled 08704 202020. I was answered by a guy who seemed to be on jerk patrol. He asked me what my point was, I replied, he came back with another question and I replied again. I passed and got put into a queue at about 12.35pm. I switched off my radio (otherwise you get feedback) and waited. By the way, as you hold you do get to listen to the show - which is nice. After about 15 minutes I was beginning to despair. I told myself if I didn't get on next I would hang up. I didn't. The next caller was Roger Ford, doyen of railway journalists, so I listened to him. There was a break. "You're next". And sure enough, at about 12.55pm Mike Dickin came on and announced "Patrick from Twickenham". Yes it would have been nicer if it had been "Patrick Crozier from the Libertarian Alliance" or "Patrick from the UK Transport web log" but I wasn't quite sure I would get past jerk patrol with that lot and anyway it would have been a nightmare to explain.

Anyway this is (approximately) what I said:

"Christian Wolmar would like us to believe..."

[I do wish I hadn't said that. I wish I had just said "Christian Wolmar seems to believe...". I certainly didn't and don't want to cast aspersions on Wolmar's motives which I believe to be true enough. Anyway, I said it.]

"...that the railway's problems are due to privatisation. While I accept that problems exist and they happened after privatisation they have nothing to do with privatisation. The problem lies in what happened at the same time: fragmentation and franchising. Japan also has a private railway. It doesn't have fragmentation or franchising and it works very well."

Oh, I think I stuttered over one word but quite frankly, I am a bit of a stutterer at the best of times and given the stressful nature of putting across your views live to millions of people I regard that as acceptable.

Wolmar replied something to the effect that he entirely agreed that fragmentation and franchising were indeed the real culprits, that he had written extensively on Japanese railways, that they had received massive subsidy [I tried to interject that they had not] and that anyway it was always a stupid idea to have a private enterprise like Railtrack at the heart of the railway. I think he also said that fragmentation etc was part of the privatisation process (grrr).

And with that, Mike Dickin, running out of time as he was, moved onto the next caller.

Had there been time I might have replied pointing out that the placement of Railtrack (which I am beginning to conclude was a pretty incompetent organisation) at the heart of the railway was a consequence of fragmentation and privatisation and not privatisation in itself. I would probably have gone on to point out that for 120 years (up until 1948) private organisations were at the heart of the railway and things went rather well. But there wasn't, so I couldn't and millions remain to be convinced. Oh well.

Nevertheless, I had done it and that was a personal Rubicon crossed. So, I am glad. Whether it did any good or not is another question. It's very difficult to tell. Maybe there was one person out there who really got what I said and will make a difference. Maybe there were lots of people who from now on, deep in their subconciousnesses will bear the idea that at least some people think that private railways are a good thing.

We will never know.

2002-11-02T10:15:00.000Z

Corrupt Statistics (cont.)

The information that the Office of National Statistics does not regard Network Rail's debt as government debt, even though it is backed by government, is not news. I commented on it some time ago.

But it does give us the chance to consider how much £20bn is. Japan's railway debt (if I recall correctly) is in the region of £30bn but then again their population is double ours. France's railway debt is about £15bn. At least in the case of Japan and France they got something for their money but as far as I am aware there are no plans to build Shinkansens in Britain.

I liked Len Cook's view that he didn't expect the government's guarantees to be called upon. Yeah right.

2002-11-01T17:59:00.000Z

The latest from Japan

JR East has just introduced a system which means that conductors no longer have to disturb passengers when checking tickets. Ingenious.

2002-10-31T21:19:00.000Z

Sanity regained

Alice Bachini is hauled back from the brink by Virgin (?!) and a few others.

2002-10-31T19:46:00.000Z

More on Metra

Stephen Karlson of Cold Spring Shops (you'll need to scroll down) tackles my question from yesterday and adds a little more local knowledge.

2002-10-31T19:40:00.000Z

Crozier speaks

I am going to be doing a couple of talks this month. The details are as follows:

	Talk 1	Talk 2
Time	7.30pm	7.00pm for 8.00pm
Date	Friday 8 November	Friday 29 November
Place	19 Festing Road, Putney	25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke St, London
Title	'Where will Ken Livingstone's Road Pricing Take Us?'	'Japan's Railways'
Other Info	Bring a bottle but no red wine	Bring a bottle. Do not be late - you won't get in. Please call Brian Micklethwait on 020 7821 5502 to let him know you're coming.
Price	Free	Free

All welcome.

2002-10-30T18:22:00.000Z

And I thought transport was a good thing

Theodore Dalrymple comments on France's crime-ridden suburbs:

In these housing projects lives an immigrant population numbering several million, from North and West Africa mostly, along with their French-born descendants and a smattering of the least successful members of the French working class. From these projects, the excellence of the French public transport system ensures that the most fashionable arrondissements are within easy reach of the most inveterate thief and vandal.

Thanks to the Edge of England's Sword for the link.

2002-10-30T17:43:00.000Z

METRA

Yesterday, I mentioned METRA, the Chicago-centred commuter network. According to Adrian Shooter or Chiltern Railways it's really very good indeed. But being the sort of person who doesn't like to take these things as read I decided to ask regular correspondent, Stephen Karlson, an Illinois resident for his views. This is what he said:

Funny you should ask. I just got back from Chicago, took the 9.30 off Elgin Big Timber to Union Station, returned on the 4.25 this evening. The down train that forms the 9.30 was 9 minutes late into Big Timber account freight train interference, but left for Chicago on time. (Not bad, turning the train in six minutes, bear in mind it's an off peak train).

Metra commuter trains are well-patronized and it's hard finding parking if you're an occasional rider at some stations. The management have made substantial investments in advisory signage and public address, and passengers at Big Timber were advised of the delay in the arriving train.

I ride Metra whenever I can as driving into Chicago is not my idea of how to start a busy day, and most of my Chicago days are busy days.

Praise indeed.

The unusual thing about METRA is that it is highly fragmented. The label encompasses four train operators and nine infrastructure operators - and yet it works. We, in the UK also have fragmentation and many (including myself) believe that it is that fragmentation that has done so much damage to the industry.

So why can fragmentation be made to work in the States but not here? I think the reason lies with those infrastructure controllers. Now I am guessing here but my guess is that most of that infrastructure is owned by private companies who specialise in operating freight trains. I would also guess that the majority (in cash terms) of the trains using those tracks are freight trains...

Err, I am afraid I have rather lost the thread here. Don't get me wrong, I do think that integration on the freight side is a contributory factor to METRA's success - it's just that when I try to explain it step by step I find that I can't quite put my finger on the reason.

I will return to this when things are a bit clearer.

2002-10-30T17:17:00.000Z

The Structure of the UK railway

Some time ago Momma Bear asked me to draw a diagram of the UK rail industry. So here goes:

Notes
For the sake of clarity I have left out the Passenger Transport Executives and the Northern Ireland situation which is outside this structure anyway and a few other things.

ROSCO - stands for rolling stock company. These are the people who actually own the trains

HSE/HMRI - stands for Health and Safety Executive/Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. They regulate safety.

And don't forget to click to enlarge.

2002-10-29T19:48:00.000Z

Adrian Shooter at the RAC

Last night I went along to the Royal Automobile Club to hear Adrian Shooter, Chairman, Chiltern Railways, give his Presidential Address to the Railway Study Association.

The venue was apparently intentional. Personally, it doesn't particularly bother me. Road and rail don't really compete all that much. It sounds an odd thing to say but in markets like the London commuter market the train is the obvious choice whereas in the countryside the automobile is bound to dominate. I thought it was a rather good way of pointing out that railwaymen are not bound to hate the car.

Shooter runs one of the best Train Operating Companies (TOCs) around. Admittedly it's a pretty dim universe but Chiltern does have lots of nice new trains, generally clean interiors and have a good record on punctuality. So, he is someone worth listening to.

His talk was on the subject of "Partnership" - not an auspicious start. Partnership and its derivatives are all about us: Public-private partnerships, European partners, partners in the "Peace Process". It's all nonsense of course - a way of putting off decisions and spreading the blame. It is the very enemy of drive, ambition and invention. I don't like it.

Anyway, I listened. The talk was rather better than that. Shooter looked at two examples from overseas. I always like that. I am not sure if he is unusual among railwaymen for this but it does seem this way.

The two examples he looked at were Japan and a system in Chicago and the surrounding area, METRA, which I must admit I had never heard of. He spoke of both in glowing terms.

So, why were they so successful? Shooter attributed this to a variety of reasons but the most important factor - and one common to both - was consistency and stability.

I am sure he is right. Railways, with their phenomenal capital expenditures, are long term businesses so it seems reasonable that stability/predicability is useful.

So, how do you get stability? Shooter didn't seem to have any answers there. Fortunately, for the rail industry - I do. The greatest period of stability the British rail industry has ever enjoyed was probably the period before the First World War. It was also a time when it received no subsidy and suffered from almost no political interference whatsoever.

These two facts are not unrelated.

2002-10-29T17:36:00.000Z

Why British rail privatisation failed

Alice Bachini has posed the question. For the long answer please have a look at my LA paper on this here (or here for an html version).

The short answer is that although the industry was privatised it was not given its freedom. Indeed, it was subject to a whole new raft of restrictions. So, it was split up and prevented from re-uniting, contracts were imposed and fare freedom denied.

2002-10-27T12:43:00.000Z

On Markets

"The railway is a public service delivered by the private sector. The experience of the last five years shows that public transport doesn't just happen as a consequence of the interaction of markets."

Richard Bowker, Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), quoted in RAIL #447, October 30 2002. This remark was apparently (RAIL do not say exactly where or when) made on October 15 at a rail finance conference.

This remark is significant for two reasons. Firstly, because Richard Bowker is the guy who is now in charge of our railways. And secondly, because it demonstrates mind-boggling ignorance.

Richard Bowker's rise to power may come as a shock to many but over recent months a minor revolution has been taking place in the rail industry. With the effective nationalisation of the infrastructure, the downgrading of the Regulator, the cash crisis in the franchises and the Government's signing of a blank cheque to the industry, Bowker has found himself in an extremely powerful position. He has not been slow to use his powers to the full, transforming franchises into Service Delivery Units (©Modern Railways) and ensuring that it is the SRA which takes the lead on infrastrucure upgrades. Make no mistake - this is the guy who is in charge.

The depressing thing is that he seems to be ignorant of both basic economics and railway history.

The word "market" means something. It principally means the free exchange of goods and services. Yes, that's the word "free" as in not compulsory. As in not forced. So for a market to be "free" it means there there is no compulsion to buy and no compulsion to sell and that price is a matter of negotiation between buyer and seller.

The so-called "market" that was brought about by fragmentation in the early 1990s was anything but free. The infrastructure owner could not decide to whom he sold paths or at what price. He even had very little control over what paths he sold. Furthermore, at least initially, he had no control over who maintained the infrastructure or, indeed, at what price.

Meanwhile, operators had little choice over what tickets they sold and at what price they sold them. In other words, the experience of the last five years has nothing to do with markets.

But what of those places and times which have left things to the market - or at least largely to the market? Well, we don't have to travel very far to see the results. Almost the entire UK network was built by railways operating in a free market - as was the case in the US. And guess what - those two networks were (at the time) the best in the world.

Or, you can have a look at the present-day Japanese system. Although, there again, there are some restrictions (particularly on fares), the market has decided what sorts of services are needed, at what intervals, using what trains. It has also decided that fragmentation doesn't work - so the operator owns the trains, the track, the signals and the stations.

And the result? Just scroll down.

2002-10-26T07:59:00.000Z

My favourite journey

After our trip down from the mountains we arrived in Otsuki. From there we took the Azusa (or was it the Super Azusa?) to Shinjuku in Tokyo.

It was new. It was clean. There were plenty of seats. There was plenty of legroom. The seat had a table and a fold-down drinks holder. Even in second class the seats reclined. And they lined up with the windows - something we don't seem to be able to do in the UK. And the window ledge was wide and flat so you could lean your arm on it as the world sped by.

And it was smooth - except whenever I tried to take a photo.

The doors opened automatically with the softest of touches.

The vending machines were clean and free of graffiti. And worked.

The loos were fantastic. Clean, modern, functioning. Perfect. I even found myself cleaning the seat as requested with one of the special wipes provided.
It goes without saying that the train was on time.

I have never had a journey like it. It was perfect. This is what rail travel should be all about.

2002-10-24T18:02:00.000Z

Alice in Blunderland

I fear that dear Alice Bachini is about to be sent round the twist by our railways. First she has a nightmare journey on Virgin (reported in brief on UKT). Then she has the nightmare of getting to the station to book a ticket and then the nightmare of booking that ticket once she has got there.

I advise that next time she have a look at QJump which seems the best of the internet booking agencies to me. I hope she has a credit card.

Ticketing is not easy. Every country in the world seems to have a different way of doing things. Up until recently (may still be that way for all I know) the Paris Metro charged by the line. You could go as far as you liked on one line but as soon as you changed you had to buy a new ticket.

The old way of doing things in the UK was to charge by the mile. But this can cause problems especially at peak times with everyone wanting to travel at the same time. Before the disaster of nationalisation we tried to get round this by offering workmen's fares for early morning pre-peak travel and excursion tickets. I am not sure if excursion tickets were for special trains or timetabled trains but I do know that they were cheap.

There is also the great difference between metro systems in big cities and long-distance travel. With long-distance travel people can be far more flexible about exactly when they travel and they can book in advance. That means that you can offer deals on lightly-patronised trains. Personally, I am all in favour of this because I am very bothered about getting a cheap fare and not at all bothered about being restricted in my travel arrangements.

In Japan they still charge by the mile (err, actually kilometre). And then they add a bit for an express service and then a little bit more for the Shinkansen and then a little bit more again for the really fast Shinkansen. Reservations, though, are free. Problem here is that people often have to stand. Fortunately, this being the Shinkansen they don't have to stand for very long. One consequence of this is that ticket barriers have to be able to cope with up to four tickets at once though it would seem that the Japanese have cracked that particular problem.

During our study tour I remember having a chat with one of our party (not quite sure whom) about this very point. He pointed to the example of peak services about 30 miles outside London. The problem here is that the trainset that picks people up can only be used once during the peak whereas a trainset operating further in could be used twice. That's a hell of a lot of very expensive underused rolling stock. The question he asked was whether people further out should be invited to pay more (over and above the mileage rate) for this inefficient use of rolling stock. My answer is an emphatic yes.

My ideal would be an EasyJet system for long-distance travel - that is where price varies according to number of tickets sold (very good for loading rates) and an Octopus style non-contact top-up card for metros.

2002-10-23T19:21:00.000Z

Fat flyers

Interesting story about Virgin having to pay £15,000 in compensation to a passenger crushed by her overweight neighbour.

Link from Rob Lyman who comments:

This isn't a pleasant subject. But I feel rather strongly that people large enough to require two seats on an airplane (or in crowded theater, or at the Super Bowl) have an obligation to their fellow fliers to accept whatever humiliation and financial loss their weight incurrs, and pay for all the space they are occupying. The alternative is just as humiliating and also insensitive to the legitimate desire of other passengers not to be crushed.

Quite

2002-10-23T18:39:00.000Z

Passenger compaints in Japan

What do passengers complain about in Japan? The question came up a couple of times during our tour. The answer came back that they complain about the air conditioning and trains being either too hot or too cold.

There are a couple of other things they complain about. One is 6 people occupying a bench seat designed for 7 in such a way that the seventh person cannot sit down. This has led to railways experimenting with recessed seats. And women have recently been complaining about being harassed late at night. This has led to railways like Keio introducing women-only carriages after about 10.30pm.

We really do have a long way to go.

2002-10-22T18:27:00.000Z

Up in the mountains

On the Wednesday of our study tour we headed up into the mountains to see Fuji. Unfortunately, it was misty so we were denied a view. At lunch the announcement was made that rather than take the coach back to Tokyo the option existed to take the train.

Half an hour later at either Fujiyoshida or Kawaguchiko station (I forget which) almost the entire party could be found queuing for a ticket - they were railwaymen after all.

This was the train. Built in about 1970, rumour has it that this isn't its original livery. It is operated by the Fujikyu Railway.

And this was another train we saw draw up as we were about to leave. Thomas the Tank Engine is big in Japan.

Inside, the train, although pretty ancient, was clean and in good condition. There was even a bird's eye view screen for those who couldn't book their berth in the observation car. The conversation went something like this:

"This is a very steep gradient"

"Yes, must be about one in twenty"

"I think there used to be a one in eighteen at Llanfairgolgafrincham (or something similar)"

"Yes, but that was rope-worked."

2002-10-21T16:27:00.000Z

Ésprit d'escalier

In yesterday's post on the Tokyo subway I forgot to mention that Teito is due to be privatised. Actually, it has been due to be privatised for some time but politicians, mindful of potential future job prospects, have found it difficult to let go.

2002-10-21T16:22:00.000Z

Kiyoshi Michimura

This is a photo of Kiyoshi Michimura, Station Master of Keio Shinjuku Station. Sadly, it was bit rushed and usually he looks a lot more on the ball and his cap is at a rather more sensible angle. I had the great honour of sitting next to him at dinner the next evening.

Which was interesting. Our various hosts sent along some pretty big hitters - directors, men from the ministry, men from the international department. But a bloke who spends his days in uniform? Maybe not so odd. On three occasions during our trip we were addressed by station masters. Good presentations too. It is a status job in Japan - probably much like it was in the UK 60 years ago. I think this is a good thing.

2002-10-20T20:45:00.000Z

Public transport is hell...

especially in Miami where they have Awful Bus Smell

2002-10-20T08:19:00.000Z

The Tokyo Subway

Tokyo has not one but two subways. Teito Rapid Transit Authority (TRTA or Teito for short) which runs 8 lines is owned partly by the national government and partly by the metropolitan government. TBTMG (or Toei) which runs 4 lines is owned exclusively by the metropolitan government. Why this is I am not entirely sure. It may have been because TBTMG ran trams which were up for replacement.

Teito, the one we visited, can be compared with London Underground thus:

	Teito	London Underground
Stations	164	253
Route Kilometerage	177.2	408
Passengers per day (millions)	5.58	2.53
Number of carriages	2,455	3,954

Fewer stations, fewer track miles, fewer cars, more passengers. How does it do it? Actually, I think the answer is right there in the stats. Fewer track miles means fewer trains idling along with a small number of passengers. It also helps that Tokyo is more densely populated than London.

Although there we received no figures on punctuality, based on personal experience Teito does seem well run. According to its Handbook (no link I'm afraid) it makes a profit (after interest payments) of about £50m a year.

There is another aspect that really had my eyes popping. At an early stage Teito decided to build its tunnels to a standard (for Japan) track gauge and loading gauge (that's the size of the car) and a standard power supply. This has meant that it has been possible to allow through running from and to private and JR tracks. In Britain we have been debating the merits of CrossRail (a mainline railway running underneath London) for over 25 years. In Japan they designed in that possibility almost at the start.

So, what's going on here? A well-run (and consistently so), apparently profitable enterprise run by the state. What is even more amazing is that at an early stage of its existence it made decisions that have had extremely good effects decades later. Surely, shome mistake. Libertarians do not, on the whole, claim that every state enterprise is bound to fail - there are always a few that prosper. But on this scale?

I have mentioned before that the existence in Japan of a large number of well-run private railways has provided a discipline for and competition to state-run railways. But that didn't prevent JNR (the state railway) from accumulating enormous debts (in the region of £30bn). Teito's debt seems to have been internalised. I have looked for pay-offs and funny corporations but haven't found them.

It's a mystery.

2002-10-18T13:38:00.000Z

The Keio Electric Railway

On Tuesday of last week we visited Keio Electric Railway, starting with a lecture at Shinjuku station in Tokyo and ending with a tour of their Chofu Control Centre (outside Tokyo).

Keio is what the Japanese call a "private" railway. This is to distinguish it from the JRs which are also private but up until 1987 were part of the state. "Private" railways (as far as I know) have always been private. It operates trains from the suburbs into Shinjuku which is Tokyo's biggest station. It is estimated that 3 million people pass through Shinjuku every day.

Its trains are built to much the same design inside and out as everyone elses and are just as punctual and just as clean. Boring. They've even introduced a late night "Women Only" carriage.

But Keio does a whole load more than simply run trains.

It runs buses.

It runs taxis.

And it owns department stores.

I also understand it runs hotels and owns a new town (through which its trains pass) to the west of Tokyo. In fact our interpreter lives there and said it was very nice.

According to the accounts Keio seems to be profitable enough.

So why the property interests? And why the alternative, nay competitor, travel businesses? The travel businesses I can't account for but property makes sense. As Don Riley pointed out in "Taken for a Ride" railways don't make money. But the property surrounding the stations does. It is an odd phenomenon but that's the way things are and if you want to make money out of running a railway then you had better make sure you have a pretty healthy grip on the sorts of places your passengers might visit.

Rumour control has it that one railway (not Keio) had a problem with a station at one end of the line which few people seemed to want a visit. They built a brothel and trade soared.

2002-10-18T11:21:00.000Z

You can click the photos...

and get a bigger version. The reason I have posted up thumbnails is because lots of large photos is going to cause major problems to people with puny connections - like me.

Thanks to Brian Micklethwait for pointing out the confusion.

2002-10-17T20:15:00.000Z

Just to let you know...

There was plenty that came out of my trip to Japan that had nothing to do with transport. This stuff is being posted on my other blog, CrozierVision.

2002-10-17T08:30:00.000Z

The barriers at Tokyo station

100,000 people use these barriers every day. Not perhaps so amazing when you know that 300,000 people (or thereabouts) use Waterloo and Liverpool St every day. But then again these aren't just any barriers. These are the barriers for the Shinkansen (Bullet Train). I don't think Euston comes anywhere close.

According to JR Central's Data Book they carry 360,000 people every day and the Shinkansen accounts for something like 85% of all revenues. Their "ordinary" network is an impressive thing in itself - I know I have seen it - and only serves to underline the mindboggling size and importance of the Shinkansen. As one of our party asked: "Where are all these people going?"

2002-10-17T07:58:00.000Z

Conservative safety fascists

Over on CrozierVision I have just posted up an article suggesting that the Conservatives are back. Then I read this from Tim Collins their Transport Spokesman:

Our fourth principle is that safety is of critical importance. We’ll review the case for seatbelts in all school buses, because our children must be safe. We’ll make it easier for local communities to get speedlimits near their homes altered on dangerous stretches of road.

Ugh. What's wrong with a remark like that? Put quite simply, you cannot make the case for freedom by making the case for tyranny.

2002-10-16T13:18:00.000Z

Tim Hall writes

Tim Hall has replied to my article on simplicity. I really had no idea how much standardisation there already was in the UK. I was particularly interested in his comments on the rolling stock bought in the last splurge in the 1950s. That's the problem with splurges - they're the railway equivalent of a premature ejaculation: they're no use to anyone and the result is a dreadful mess. A pointer for the SRA and Network Rail perhaps?

2002-10-16T13:08:00.000Z

0830 Shinagawa Station

One day last week (I think it was Wednesday) I decided to experience Tokyo's legendary rush hour. So, I wandered down from the hotel to Shinagawa Station and on to the platform for the Yamanote Line (Tokyo's Circle Line).

The scene was busy. Lots of people were lined up from one side of the platform (next to the mark indicating where the doors would open) to the other. It wasn't a particularly wide platform.

The train drew up. It was packed. The doors opened by the mark. Nothing happened. At least not initially. Then people by the doors started popping out. They didn't want to and many resisted but eventually the force of people behind them proved overwhelming.

People started streaming off. The "expelled", resigned to their fate, formed a second, orderly queue.

With the people who wanted to get off having got off the "boarders" got to work. At all times the Japanese are a courteous and considerate race. At all times that is except at 0830 at Shinagawa Station on a weekday. It was a hell of a push. Dignified was it not. Conversations such as "After you" "No, after you" were decidedly thin on the ground.

And then a moment of peace. All those people who get on had got on. Some had not managed the job 100% but one got the feeling that they would. Meanwhile new orderly queues formed on the platform.

Eventually, the doors closed, the less that 100%ers managed to cram the last remaining bits of skin, flesh and bone onto the train and the train drew away.

Much as I would have liked to I didn't take any photographs of this scene. I felt it was too much of an invasion of other people's privacy.

So, why the crush? Some background may be helpful. In Japan fares are controlled. Season tickets are cheap in comparison to ordinary fares. Employers will usually by season tickets for their employees.

But it occurs to me that this dreadful scene may not be entirely due to fare control. A railway company may well have all sorts of incentives to keep the fares low. For instance, if you are a railway company and you own commercial property (as many do in Japan) the value of the property (in terms of rent) is, at least in part, determined by the number of people who can get to that property in peak hours. Sure, you can put up the fares but what you gain on the fares you lose on the property.

Sadly, I didn't get the chance to ask this question while I was in Japan. One of many I am afraid. So, if anyone out there knows better I would love to hear from you.

2002-10-14T23:00:00.000Z

KISS

Look at this photo:

And now this:

And now this:

Notice any similarity? OK, they're pug ugly but other than that they are all a very similar design: straight sides, connecting doors at the front, three or four sliding doors per car. For the record they are also very similar inside. With very few exceptions, all trains of this type have bench seating and large numbers of grab handles.

These trains are the backbone of Japan's commuter network. You see the same design everywhere you go - on commuter trains, subway trains and regional stopping services. The only real variation seems to be in the number of doors per side: 4 is typical in Tokyo, 3 elsewhere.

Now, this is idle speculation but I suspect that Japan's decision to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) is to a large degree the basis of its success in moving an enormous number of people reliably and punctually.

If you standardise on one design that means you can constantly improve upon it over the years. You can introduce a model, find out how it works in service, how easy it is to maintain and incorporate the lessons in the next release.

Strangely enough in Britain we also have trains that are extremely reliable. They are known as Mark 1s. They were also the product of many years of experienced-based improvement. They are due to be scrapped by the end of 2004.

And their replacements? Not such a happy tale I am afraid. The replacements are to be a mish-mash of different designs from different manufacturers. They are being introduced in a rush. Already, there are signs that they are way off the reliability of their predecessors. No great surprise really as there simply hasn't been the time to get it right.

2002-10-14T20:20:00.000Z

Virgin Trains

Alice Bachini got on a train this weekend and didn't like it.

Meanwhile, I also got on a train this weekend. It was clean, there was space, the loos worked and it was very fast. It was also privately-owned and, err, in Japan.

So, how come Japanese private trains work and British private trains don't? That is not an easy question to answer. I suspect that there are two factors at work. First of all Japanese people are very considerate towards each other. Secondly, since privatisation the government in Japan has (largely) left the railways alone. Sadly the same was never the case here in the UK - what with franchising, fragmentation and the unleashing of the health fascists of the HSE.

2002-10-14T16:48:00.000Z

I'm back !

I am now back from a week's study tour of Japan's railways organised by the Railway Study Association. It has been quite an eye-opener. If anything that is rather understating the case - I have been overwhelmed by what I have seen and heard. There is a huge amount of information to process and it will take quite a while (if at all) to form some definite conclusions. For the time being what I will do is to blog the many observations I made during my time there. Hopefully, firmer conclusions will follow.

But before I do anything, though, I would like to thank our hosts, JR Central, and the many other companies and organisations who put up with us during our stay. They were unstinting in their generosity, politeness and helpfulness. The fact that they never failed to get 50 wilful railway buffs to the right place at the right time says a lot for the thoroughness of their planning and single-mindedness in carrying it out (a theme, by the way, which will run through much of the posts that will follow).

2002-10-08T09:47:00.000Z

Japan

I am writing this from the the seventh floor Internet Cafe of the Shinagawa Prince Hotel, Tokyo, Japan. I am here with the Railway Study Association studying Japan's railways. Got a problem with that? There is a lot to be said and I hope to be posting like crazy especially when I get home. And not just about railways. Japan is a fascinating country with or without railways and at risk of breaking the First Commandment of UK Transport I intend to write a whole bunch about that too. Anyway, time is flying and I must dash.

2002-10-03T18:14:00.000Z

Unlicenced Minicabs

Item 1 on this evening's BBC London news was about unlicenced minicabs. They produced a figure of one rape per week in unlicenced cabs. Not sure about that one. Wonder what the figure for black cabs and licenced minicabs was.

Anyway, never mind, the call was the usual one for ever more laws and regulations. Had anyone thought (don't be so stupid) that it might be the existing regulations that had caused the problem in the first place? Apparently not.

I don't know what exactly the regulations on cabs are in London but I would guess they go something like this. All cabs have to be licenced and the supply of licences is in some way restricted. This causes a shortfall in the number of cabs. But all you need to run a cab is a saloon car so it is not entirely surprising that this gap in the market gets filled. Nor is it any great surprise that the gap gets filled by criminals. Yet another example of the state trying to solve a problem of its own creation.

So, what would happen in a free market where anyone could ply their trade in a cab? Well, for starters there would be a lot more of them. But I believe that the branding effect would soon come into play. Customers would want to know that the cab that they were getting into was safe. This would encourage the emergence of cab companies which could be relied on to screen drivers and provide other deterrents. Competition would drive up quality and soon cab rape would become a thing of the past.

2002-10-03T04:53:00.000Z

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss...

So, it's goodbye Railtrack and hello Network Rail. And to celebrate the BBC has written an article. Hurrah.

The company [Network Rail] will be faced with the huge task of restoring public confidence in train travel and upgrading the state of Britain's rail infrastructure.

Is it in charge of upgrades? I thought that was in the hands of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) these days. I also love this term "restoring public confidence". How would you know? I suppose what it really means is "getting the issue off the front pages until the next general election."

Network Rail will be run as a not-for-profit company, which means it will plough any profits it makes back into rail maintenance rather than pay dividends to shareholders.

Profits? Fat chance. There are no shareholders, stupid, so no one to please. And they've got a £20bn borrowing facility.

Last year the then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers put Railtrack into administration rather than keep contributing to the company's rising track repair bill.

So, they've decided to keep contributing to NR's rising track repair bill instead. Yippee.

2002-10-03T04:52:00.000Z

Strike!

The Evening Standard loses its rag.

Meanwhile, Tube rebels defy bullies. How odd. You don't normally get a crack in a strike until much later.

2002-10-03T04:47:00.000Z

Other news

The £1m Tube vandal - and he had his own special grinding tool. Stepson of a barrister. That figures. Wonder what he'll get when he's sentenced on Friday. Although Christian Michel has dropped the idea of restitutional justice I haven't. And I also like the idea of convicts having to make up for all those offences where the offenders weren't caught.

2002-10-02T02:47:00.000Z

A reliable railway?

John Armitt, head of Railtrack, yesterday claimed that it would take three years before trains returned to "consistent" levels of performance.

One has to wonder what he means by "consistent". I presume he doesn't mean "consistently bad". Does he mean pre-Hatfield levels? Or pre-fragmentation? Surely, he cannot mean Japanese levels of performance? It would be nice to know.

Despite this I was pleased to see that Armitt is emphasising the need to repair bridges, viaducts, embankments and signal boxes rather than glamorous projects like the West Coast Route Modernisation. It has long been a belief of mine that getting railways right is all about getting all the boring stuff right. If, and only if, you do that can you move on to the headline-grabbing cutting edge stuff.

It is my belief (and Lord knows I can't prove it) that Japan's success originated with the private railways. These were the railways which just plodded on with the mundane job of getting commuters to work and did it to cost and to a high standard. It was this private culture that prevented JNR (the state-owned railway) from complete collapse by providing it with some stiff competition. Sadly, the private railways could not prevent JNR from losing its shirt but when the government decided that it had to do something about JNR it was fortunate enough that the private railways provided the model.

2002-09-30T04:12:00.000Z

Lord Montague slams "anti-motorists"

In a letter to the Times^* he said:

Every motorist should be grateful to Mr. Frederic Harrison for his frank letter advocating the suppression of motoring. It shows how much hatred, malice, and uncharitableness there lies behind the complaints of many anti- motorists. This trait - that of opposing progress - has been manifest for untold generations. Their arguments are always the same and are always proved baseless by time...

But he reserved his his severist criticisms for the police saying:

By all means let police-traps be placed where there is any reason to think danger may exist, but if the police and law-abiding motorists are to combine to suppress the road hog, the tactics of setting traps on roads where there is no danger in speed must be discouraged by the authorities. At present, the police neglect their other duties and look upon trapping as a regular sport...

Oh, and when did he write this letter? September 30, 1907.

^*The Times (bastards) require foreign readers to make a paid subscription.

2002-09-29T18:54:00.000Z

Holland isn't perfect - shock

Holland is not perfect. I found it difficult to believe too but the view came from a Dutchman and so I guess I will have to (reluctantly, mind you) accept that Netherlands reality diverges in significant degrees from Utopian fantasy.

"How?", I asked.

"Well, your road manners are much better than ours." came the reply. Boy, was I glad my chair had arms - otherwise I would have fallen off it. Boy, was I glad there was a carpet - otherwise my dropping jaw would have sustained a nasty accident.

But this guy was the expert. He had lived and drived in both countries and found that when he went back to Holland he was surprised that people would tailgate, that they wouldn't let him in and in various other ways weren't quite as nice.

Well, well, well.

2002-09-24T10:34:00.000Z

On mobile communication

Brian Micklethwait of Samizdata writes:

I recently visited my sister Daphne and her husband Denis in western Wales. On the train from Swansea to Carmarthen I sat next to a mobile phone addict. Annoying, you may be thinking. A rant against mobile phones, you may be expecting. "I'm on a train. I am due to arrive at Carmarthen in seven and a quarter minutes, see you then. I am due in four and three quarter minutes, because we've been slightly delayed, see you then or soon after." - etc. But it was nothing like that. The guy was running an entire business from his train seat. He was responsible, it seemed, for about half a dozen building sites scattered all over the south of England, and to solve the various problems that were continually arising he had only so many good people, a few of whom were not at all eager to be doing any more work late on a Friday afternoon and had to be soothed and bribed. Thousands of pounds of work, if not tens of thousands, were being done from an office the guy kept in his pocket.

Much is made of the economic impact of the Internet, and this is now big and and will be more so. The application of computers in general to business in general proceeds rapidly. But one of the great economic success stories of the last decade has been the humble mobile phone, especially when applied by people without settled offices, and in countries without previously functioning phone systems. Getting mobile phones to work is not easy and involves much planting of spikes in the countryside, but it's a lot easier than putting wires and switching stations everywhere and keeping all that going without interruption. (Besides which, the Internet started to work even better when that too became pluggable into mobile phone sockets.)

I've read about the economics of mobile phones in books, and I recall reading newspaper reports about how mobile phones, although still then quite expensive, made the reconstruction of - and reintegration into civilisation of - East Berlin after the Wall had come down, a lot easier. One mobile in an Indian village entirely changes the rules of the bargaining war between rural farmers and the big crop buyers, because suddenly the village knows what others are getting for their crops. It's not only drug-dealers who use these things. But reading a book or newspaper is one thing; sitting next to the thing and actually listening to it is something else again, and this was the first time I'd really done this. (All the previous times it was idiot suburbanites telling each other they'd meet in four and three quarter minutes.)

I told brother-in-law Denis about this and he offered a recollection of being out with his son-the-BA-airline-pilot and a friend of his son-the-BA-airline-pilot who was a biggish cheese in the then struggling to emerge Ryanair. I think it was Ryanair; maybe one of the other cheap and cheerful airlines. Anyway, this guy was sitting at the restaurant deciding which airplanes should go where. ("Take 135 to Frankfurt, and divert 133 to Edinburgh, and then use 133 to do F52554, instead of the dodgy one, which can stay in Edinburgh where the maintenance people know it better, etc. etc. etc.".) That's somewhat off my main point, but since it was transport related...

So, getting back to my point, which is mobiles used on transport rather than merely to organise transport from a fixed spot ...: A particular form of transport isn't just nice because it's cheap or fast or comfortable; it's also nice if you can continue to communicate easily with the outside world while using it, in other words if you can continue with your life. The battles about drivers or airline passengers using mobiles are not trivial. That tube trains don't allow mobile communication if in their tubes, ditto. (Will that ever change? Do tube systems beyond London allow mobiles to be used from within the tubes?) [I thought it was because radio waves can't penetrate the tunnels. Mind you I suppose that is an argument for base stations (or whatever they're called) in tunnels - Ed]

But maybe, in the trains where you can use portables, there should be mobile and non-mobile compartments. So to speak.

PS: When I was polishing this I went all through it eliminating the earlier word "portable" and replacing it with more recent "mobile". An interesting nuance. Portability is effort. Mobility is automatic. When will portable but still serious computers, of the kind that don't oblige you to have another real one back at base, finally make it to "mobile"?

2002-09-18T21:18:00.000Z

Association of British Drivers

Praise be to the ABD. That's where I got the link illustrating just how green and pleasant Britain still is (see below). It is also the location of articles on why the car is not a threat to the environment and how asthma is actually the result of clean air. Personally, I thought it was a result of the abolition of leaded petrol but it is something of a pet theory of mine.

2002-09-18T21:10:00.000Z

England's new first airport

Brian Micklethwait of Samizdata writes:

Sean Gabb was on BBC Radio Oxford last week. He was on to denounce the hideous notion of a national, compulsory DNA database, and denounce it he duly did. He also legalised all drugs and abolished gun control.

I know all this because Radio Oxford sent Sean a tape c/o me and I had a listen. After Sean was finished, I carried on listening and just before the tape ran out there was a report about how the British government intends the construction of the second biggest airport in the world (with only Chicago being bigger) in a green bit of the midlands, in the Rugby-Coventry area. The first report was a mere listener ringing up about a horrified letter a friend of hers had sent her. A hoax right? Apparently not. A local BBC reporter came on and said, yes, this is indeed the plan. It was apparently announced on the day before parliament broke up for its summer holidays, and there will only be a few short months for the inevitable protesters to protest against it all.

Personally I'm for it. I don't live in the Midlands, but if I did I would probably be even more for it. I'm confident that airplanes will go on getting quieter, and airports accordingly ever less disruptive. Airplanes fly over me when they land at Heathrow. Only Concorde is at all noisy and Concorde would be magnificent at twice the din. Even more magnificent in fact, because then you'd know even sooner when it was coming and could rush out and look at it even more easily than you can now.

Plus, if you take the trouble actually to fly over England in a airplane, you can observe that England is anything but overcrowded. It consists mostly of empty greenery, and it will go on doing so for many decades to come. The only reason people think it's overcrowded is because the crowded bits are the bits that most people spend most of their time looking at. Most people now live in towns or cities, and motorways and mainline railways, in addition to themselves (motorways especially) being development also attract more development alongside them, and people confuse the view from the car or train window as they whiz from one English town or city to another with the state of play everywhere. "Overcrowded" is a typical townie cliché, not a reality.

Even so, did you know about this new airport plan, Patrick? It sounds like it may be about to keep you very busy.

Err... no I didn't. It does seem a rather odd place to put an airport though. [Ed.]

2002-09-17T18:16:00.000Z

The Greatest Railway in the World

This photo comes from the Japanese Railway Society and is captioned "A 113 series EMU passes Tamachi station on its way to Tokyo station on a Tokaido Line suburban working in June 2002."

There are a couple of things that really struck me about this photo. The first is how clean everything is. The train is clean, front and side, the platform (what little you can see of it) is clean and free of litter. The ballast (not that I am an expert on this) is clean and neatly laid. There is no litter on the tracks (as there so often is in the UK)

The second is how ugly everything is. The train is ugly, its livery is ugly. The overhead masts are ugly as are the cables they support. Even the platform looks ugly. It is a million miles away from the romantic shots of steam trains puffing their way across rural landscapes that most of us are used to.

I am not going to speculate on whether this ugliness is a product of commercialism or Japanese culture or some other factor but I would say that if the choice was between this ie Japanese levels of punctuality, reliability, capacity and cleanliness, and what we have in the UK at the moment I would take this every time.

2002-09-16T19:01:00.000Z

The New Labour Fear Factor

In an otherwise platitudinous article on why we should elect him Mayor of London, Tony Banks does at least say:

I often have to travel home late at night and it can be a disgusting and frightening experience.

He won't do anything about it, of course, but it does at least indicate that Socialists are having to suffer the consequences of their own actions.

2002-09-15T12:10:00.000Z

Tee hee hee

See this. If only Stelios had called it easyVirtue.

2002-09-10T22:01:00.000Z

Billions of Blue Blistering Bendy Buses

Actually they're not blue, they're red. But they are coming to a road near you (if you live in London). All sorts of the great and the good eg. Ken, Transport for London, the Bus Users' Group etc think it's a really good idea.

Which makes me suspicious. Of course, I can't tell because I know little about buses and it is extremely difficult to evaluate these things especially in the topsy-turvy world of state economics.

There was one line that got my goat:

"The driver can see the whole length of the bus rather than relying on a restricted view of the upper deck through mirrors. This makes the buses less vulnerable to vandalism and also helps passengers feel safer."

You see, my feeling is that potential vandals should live in such fear of the probability and consequences of being caught that they would never dare try. I do not know whether the decision to abolish of one of London's finest traditions was tipped by the vandalism factor but I hate to think that it was. We must stop these people - not run away from them.

2002-08-24T08:32:00.000Z

Don't part 20/7834

The news that the government is thinking of banning (ie will ban) the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving does not fill me with joy. I hate laws like this. It's just another low-lying property swept away by the tidal wave of rules, regulations and restrictions engulfing a once free country.

But you try telling that to a "normal" person. Normal people don't operate on the metaphysical plane. They work on a far more down to earth level. To them it seems obvious: if something is dangerous then ban it.

What are the assumptions that such people make?

That if something nasty is happening then the government should do something about it
That that something is new legislation
That legislation will be enforced
That enforcement will be effective
That legislation will have no adverse side effects.

Let's start in the middle with the idea that enforcement will be effective. How would you know? To the best of my knowledge there are no statistics at present on the number of dead and injured caused by the use of mobile phones. OK, so maybe there are other ways of looking at it. Tests have shown (and I tend to believe them) that people using mobile phones are less attentive. So, that would tend to suggest that if fewer people were using mobile phones there would be fewer accidents. So, you could measure success on the basis of the total number of accidents or on the basis of the number of people using mobile phones. But neither number is going to be easy to generate. Sure, you can get stats on the number of accidents but this statistic tends to bounce around and in any given year, half a dozen other factors could make a difference. Factoring out all these other factors is more or less impossible. Generating a figure for moblile phone use would be similarly difficult. After all, who is going to admit to a criminal offence?

And as we all know there are plenty of other laws which the police try to enforce but fail to.

Of course, the government is already doing things about mobile phone use. If you use a mobile phone and you crash your car (or drive without due care and attention) you are likely to be prosecuted. You will not be prosecuted for the use of the mobile phone but for the damage you cause - which seems a rather fairer arrangement. What about all those people who are capable of driving and chatting at the same time?

But such arguments don't really get to the heart of things. All I have suggested is that legislation might not be effective. What I need to suggest is that its effects will in fact be negative. And that's where the side effects come in.

I believe that laws like this cause untold damage. I mean damage that really is untold. The effects of regulations such as these are both unpredictable and unmeasurable. I believe that they undermine respect for authority and lead to a decline in personal responsibility: if you treat people like idiots that's how they'll act. I believe that there is a definite correlation in the number of petty regulations that have been introduced over the last 30 years and the general decline in our society. I just wish I could prove it.

2002-08-23T09:36:00.000Z

In the news

Skellett likely to step down at Jarvis
Passengers choke on the Tube
Drivers vandalise speed cams
Rail repairs to stay with contractors
CPS given Hatfield dossier
Rethink for hated chicane

2002-08-22T09:02:00.000Z

In the news

First our guns. Cars soon?
Danger roads 'have fewest cameras'
Ryanair demands pilots work past limit
Passengers stranded as bus firm folds
Ryanair's ascent
Ryanair safety graphic

2002-08-21T09:20:00.000Z

Oh no, he doesn't

See here.

Actually, the point I was making was one about architecture and not about convenience.

2002-08-20T12:26:00.000Z

More on stations

Following yesterday's article Tim Hall finds himself largely in agreement.

2002-08-20T08:31:00.000Z

In the news

For TV this compulsive, you need a private jet - Jeremy Clarkson, 17, likes 24, dislikes queues at airports
Move to ban 'mobile drivers' criticised
Airlines attacked over 'poor standards'
Insurance snag threatens 'new Railtrack'
Wheels within uninsured wheels - rail's insurance crisis
Traffic jams are 'biggest cause of stress'

2002-08-19T20:05:00.000Z

What's wrong with stations?

I find almost all stations disappointing. And it's not just the graffiti, the vandalism, the tatty appearance of many of them or the fact that so many have been rebuilt by modern architects - modernity's answer to the Luftwaffe. Even if none of those things applied I would still be disappointed.

Frankly, stations do not seem to be part of the modern world.

Take a "normal" shop or place you spend your money. MacDonalds, or a bar or an airport. In each case there is a system. MacDonalds's system is brilliant. You go in, you walk to the back, you pick up your food, you look for a seat and if you can't find one - no worries - there's probably one upstairs (or in some cases downstairs)

Or take the airport. OK, so arriving there by road is a pain but once you've entered the terminal building it's a piece of cake. You check in, go through passport control, go through security, do some shopping, go to the departure gate, board your plane. Easy peasy.

But with stations the system is far from clear. Where is the booking office? How do I queue? Where does my train depart from? How do I get there? What time does it leave? All these questions are answered in different ways by different stations. It is tremendously confusing and it adds to the impression of chaos.

The worst stations are non-terminii. They have one huge fundamental problem: how to get passengers from one side of the tracks to the other. The options are: a bridge, a tunnel or a level crossing. In most cases a level crossing is a non-starter - they are simply too dangerous. So that leaves bridges or tunnels. Aside from the inconvenience of having to ascend a set of stairs I have yet to encounter a bridge that wasn't flimsy or a tunnel that wasn't dingy.

And what happens when you get to your platform? You wait, that's what you do. When you wait in the departure lounge at an airport you at least get a comfy chair. When you wait at the dentist's they at least provide you with something to read. But on a station platform it's just you, your thoughts and whatever the weather's dreamt up for you.

Could stations be better? The omens are not good. Everywhere I've gone the problems seem to be the same. No one seems to have cracked it. Is there something inherent about stations that leads to them inevitably lagging behind? Is it the number of people involved? Is it the variety of train services? Is it the gap between the biggest and smallest?

2002-08-19T06:47:00.000Z

In the news

Failure to detect Comet's fatal flaw
Bid to halt night flights
BAA trying to build third runway

2002-08-18T10:46:00.000Z

Network Rail gears up

Interview with Network Rail Chairman, Ian McAllister, in the Times. A few things caught my attention:

The public interest company created by the Government to replace Railtrack is to review the current system of performance penalties which suck millions of pounds out of the network while causing punctuality to deteriorate.

Network Rail can review the system as much as it likes. The problem is that it can't do anything about it - that's Tom Winsor, the Regulator's prerogative. Of course, now that both the infrastructure and the regulation are effectively part of the state it will be interesting to see how the Chinese walls work. My guess is that that particular metaphorical office is going to look very open plan indeed with McAllister sitting at a big desk in the middle barking out orders to Winsor the office boy. Maybe, the Times is more right than it knows.

Commenting on the need for high punctuality targets, Ian Coucher, Deputy Chief Executive said:

"The Japanese may achieve that level but the cost is very, very high. There is a price to pay in terms of capacity and the amount of maintenance you have to do and I don’t know whether that makes sense..."

The cost may indeed be high in Japan but it's all paid for and not by the Japanese government. I am sure that the fact that the main Japanese railways are integrated, privately-owned and unsubsidised is a complete red herring and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the situation in this country.

And finally there was this:

It [Network Rail] will advertise for 60 "public interest members" of Network Rail, drawn from passenger groups, unions and the public. They will join 40 "industry members". The 100 members will meet at least twice a year to scrutinise Network Rail’s performance.

Try not to laugh. Or weep.

2002-08-18T06:23:00.000Z

In the news

Britain moves to end 'open skies' deadlock - good background article on why there are only 4 carriers on the Heathrow-US route
Airlines nosedive as passengers put price first - interesting article by Irwin Stelzer. Seems that a minor revolution is going on in the airline business.
Rail venture sets off on the track to better service

2002-08-17T07:20:00.000Z

In the news

Experimental jet 'a success'
10,000 flights changed as services are cut
High ho, it's off to work I go …

2002-08-16T07:44:00.000Z

The railway's tragedy

I was listening to Radio 4's News Quiz the other day (I think). There was an article about train overcrowding. Linda Smith (I think) made some remark like: "Why don't they just add an extra carriage?" Queue laughter.

So, why don't they add an extra carriage? I am by no means an expert but here are a few possible answers.

If you tried to add a carriage the first question is where would you get it from? In peak hours, when overcrowding occurs just about every carriage in an operator's fleet is either in use or undergoing maintenance. So you'd have to either buy one, or, as the current system dictates, lease one.

Let's look at the economics of that. First of all there is the cost. According to RAIL 405 a new carriage costs about £100,000 a year. And then you have to add in cleaning, stabling, maintenance, staffing and power costs.

But how much does it bring in? Well, if we remember that this exercise is about reducing overcrowding then not a lot. The aim is not to bring in new customers and the existing customers (because of fare control) cannot be made to pay any more. So we are looking at a loss of at least £100,000 per carriage per year.

Then there is the question of where to put the carriage. You can't put it at the end - otherwise you couldn't drive the train out of the station. Doesn't make sense? Let me explain. In the old days trains were made up of carriages and locomotives. Nowadays, certainly for commuter services, trains are made up exclusively of what are known as multiple units. Multiple units are self-powered sets of carriages (usually between 3 and 5) with driving cabs at either end. They are capable of being driven in either direction. The only way you can expand them is by adding an extra multiple unit.

So, why not add a multiple unit? Well, of course, in many cases they already do. Why not add another one? This is where things get very tricky. If you have 12-coach trains ie 3 multiple units, you need 12-coach platforms. Very few stations have these. They are expensive and under the current arrangements capital improvements to stations are outside the control of the train operators.

It is the railway's tragedy that:

lot's of people use them
there are lots of problems
the solutions look easy
they aren't

[Since first publishing this piece, Tim Hall of Kalyr.com has e-mailed me to point out that operators can and do add extra carriages to the middle of multiple units. I presume that they do so in order to avoid fines for overcrowding. As I understand it this would not be a solution south of the Thames. Firstly, because you can only really carry out this arrangement on relatively new trains and secondly, because there would still be insufficient platform space. Having said that, I understand that SWT will be running its new trains in formations of 10 rather than the usual 8.]

2002-08-15T10:33:00.000Z

No, you can't have a seat

Connex, the London commuter railway, is consulting passengers over the interior design of its carriages. Now, you might have thought this was a good thing but not if you read the London Evening Standard. Their article starts:

For years London's hardpressed rail commuters have complained of being herded into carriages like animals. Now Connex, which serves the capital's busiest routes, has admitted its new trains will be like "cattle trucks".

Ah yes, "cattle trucks". That's a good emotional term. Even better because it evokes images of millions of people being sent to gas chambers. Who wants to travel on a cattle truck? What sort of bastard would want to make them?

So, will these new and refurbished carriages actually be like cattle trucks? Will they lack windows, or seats, or lighting, or ventilation? Of course not. Will they lack suspension? Will faeces and urine swim around the floor? Of course not. The only similarity is that people will have to stand. So, if the Evening Standard was looking for a more accurate simile (which, of course, it wasn't) it would have used the term "Japanese-style" carriages.

But why should people have to stand at all? Couldn't they lay on more trains or longer trains or double-deck trains? In their press release, Connex carefully explain why they can't, or at least why they can't anytime soon. None, of this, however, got into the Evening Standard article. Did they lose the power to read half-way through?

Instead, we get a whole load of whingeing from various statist pressure groups such as the Rail Passengers Committee and Capital Transport.

Connex also explain (and to give the Standard their due here, they do report it) that many changes would require changes to the infrastructure over which Connex has no control. So, at least part of the problem lies with state-enforced fragmentation, which, incidentally, Alistair Darling is not going to do anything about.

What no one mentions is that the quickest way to solve the problem would be to allow Connex the flexibility to put up the fares. Not only would this reduce overcrowding over a fairly short period but it would also give Connex the sort of financial muscle it needs to be able to fund infrastructure improvements. See Higher fares are good for you and update.

Having said that, I am not entirely surprised that Connex decided to leave that one out of the press release. It doesn't seem to matter how reasonable they are or how much they are trying to change (see Apologies Connex) the story, as far as the press are concerned, is that Connex are rubbish and that wild horses won't make them change their minds.

2002-08-15T08:28:00.000Z

In the news

Working from home - Times letters
United Airlines warns of bankruptcy
M-way drivers ignoring fatigue
Connex warning over new trains

2002-08-14T10:18:00.000Z

Have rail fares gone up...? - an update

Last week I posed the question whether fares had gone up or not, did some sums and posted the results on the uk.railway newsgroup. This caused a storm of protest.

Most were protesting at what had happened to "walk-on" fares. These are fares that you don't have to book in advance and have, in most cases, risen considerably. But that wasn't in question. I was never saying that no fares had risen. What I said was that some fares had risen, some had fallen (or rather been brought into existence) and that the average was about the same.

One poster wrote that walk-on fares were: "the one big advantage of railways over other forms of transport, cars excluded." So that would be coaches and aircraft then? I really do hate such absolute statements when they can so easily be contradicted. Sure, it may be the big advantage for some people but not all. Personally speaking, I can say that the advantage of rail is price and the fact you can read. For others it may be that they have a meal or get on with some work at the same time. For others it may be that it offers city centre to city centre travel or that you can use it to get to most places in the country. The fact that fare revenue has not collapsed would seem to indicate that rail has many advantages other than walk-on fares.

Several replies demonstrated a very shaky grasp of mathematics and the English language. One wrote: "Such an average [ie my average] ignores the fact that people do not buy tickets at this average price. Offering cheap ticket[s] will lower the average ticket price, but the majority of passengers will be paying as much or more than they were (because extra restrictions are generally placed on other tickets when very cheap ones are introduced)." I hope that anyone reading this can see the flaw in the logic (such as it is). The point is that my calculation was based on fare revenue ie what people actually paid not what they could have paid. The last part is plain ludicrous. If the average fare paid is the same but fare prices have both gone up and down that means that the majority of passengers are paying less. The same applies to the correspondent who asked me to supply the median figure.

One of the unexpected benefits of posting the article to a newsgroup was that a thread developed on the subject of competition on the London to Manchester route. There isn't any. Midland Mainline would like to offer an alternative to Virgin but can't because Railtrack who have a deal with Virgin won't let them. So much for on-rail competition. Bizarrely enough, had the industry been privatised on a regional basis such competition would have been possible.

2002-08-13T08:34:00.000Z

No to public enquiries

Yesterday, Louise Christian, the railway accident lawyer and Socialist Alliance activist, once again called for a public enquiry into the Potters Bar crash. She is nothing if not consistent. She said:

If there had been a public inquiry into Hatfield, which happened along the same railway line, for probably much the same reasons, then arguably Potters Bar wouldn't have happened.

Well, I don't know where to start. Hatfield and Potters Bar were completely different accidents. One involved a broken rail, the other a failed set of points. Even so, there is every possibility that both can trace their root causes back to the fragmented nature of the industry.

The question is whether a public enquiry is likely to solve the problem. They haven't got a particularly good track record in this area. First of all, they take a long time. The report into the Ladbroke Grove crash took over two years to complete. Had a similar enquiry taken place into Hatfield then there is every likelihood we'd still be waiting for it. Second, public enquiries are extremely expensive (all those QCs on £500 an hour) and consume vast amounts of managers' time, diverting them from their real job of running the railway. Third, public enquiries do not have a particularly good track record of producing useful conclusions. The Cullen enquiry recommended a hugely expensive, untried and not spectacularly useful safety system known as ERTMS. In the heat of the safety frenzy that it itself had done so much to whip up, the Government committed itself to implementing these recommendations. Ever since, the government has been dreaming up ways of wiggling out of this commitment. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

There is also a particular problem with Potters Bar in that the cause is far from certain. It is difficult to see how lawyers will succeed where engineers have failed.

So, what is the alternative? How's about some freedom. People are very suspicious of private enterprise. They believe that they will put "profits before safety". But the reality is that if you don't put safety before profits you don't make the profits. Just look at what happened to Railtrack. The fact is that accidents cost a lot of money. Compensation to the dead and injured is part of it but there is also the disruption to the service, the cost of replacing the rolling stock and the cost of replacing wrecked track. It is precisely this pursuit of profits that led to the Japanese Railway being the safest in the world.

2002-08-13T06:59:00.000Z

It has nothing to do with privatisation

In an otherwise good article on our transport problems, A N Wilson rounds off by saying:

Kingsley Amis thought that the spirit of "sod the public", which afflicted all public services, was the consequence of state socialism-Chaotic capitalism has even less regard for the actual needs of individuals. Transport chaos will get better only when a green dictator takes over and forces us all to stay at home: i.e. Never.

Apart from the fact that roads and air traffic control are nationalised he falls into the old trap of blaming all our rail problems on "privatisation". The chaos on the railways has nothing to do with capitalism or privatisation and everything to do with fragmentation and franchising - both of them creatures of Whitehall. See Misuses of the English Language #1: Privatisation

2002-08-13T06:48:00.000Z

In the news
Railtrack in 'consultancy spending spree' - I must have missed this first time round
Soon all this could be railway (again) - plans to re-open the Great Central Railway
US Airways falls prey to September 11
£12m offer to rail crash families 'is meaningless'
Tailback of votes puts M25 at top of public hate list
Travelling on a road to ruin
Legal threat over easyJet flight
Two-day rail strike under way

2002-08-12T09:25:00.000Z

Natalie Solent quotes from the New Statesman of 1916. They were praising the government take over of the railway during the First World War. Isn't it amazing how the cause of socialism was aided by the world wars?

2002-08-12T09:01:00.000Z

Praise be to More Room Throughout Coach which is (sort of) my American alter ego. Author, Gary Leff, seems to be mostly interested in getting cheap air fares but he has called for the impeachment of Norman Mineta, America's Secretary of State for Transportation. Gofurit!

2002-08-11T14:54:00.000Z

Puzzled

Generally, when I read something in the press, I have little doubt what I think about it but I am afraid that this article in the Times on railway insurance leaves me stumped.

That insurance premiums for engineering consultants and maintenance contractors are rising is not in doubt. The question is why? Explanations include the "spate" of railway accidents and the stock market.

Rising insurance premiums is not necessarily a bad thing. People often say to me that private companies don't have to bother with safety because insurance will pay out. My reply to this is that insurance payouts come from insurance premiums and that in the long run they pay. If it is the case that safety has declined and that premiums have to go up then quite right too.

The stock market explanation seems to be a complete red herring unless there has been some weird and wonderful way that insurance premiums have been being subsidised in recent years.

The idea that the railway is significantly more dangerous also seems dodgy. As I understand it (and I will see what statistics I can dig out here) although there have been some high profile crashes the death rate and other accident rates are not massively different from previous times. It is possible to argue that the trouble is all ahead of us and to look at the four foot at the average SWT station you would have to agree. But then again, TPWS (a safety system) will soom be with us, contractors do seem to be getting their act together and the industry is painfully aware of the importance of safety.

So what is the explanation then? The only thing that is left, it seems to me, is the whole public enquiry/corporate manslaughter circus. As far as I remember there is still a possibility of court cases arising from the Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar crashes and the payouts could be enormous.

It is also possible that the fragmentation of the industry doesn't help. Recently, I rang up WAGN to find out how much the Potters Bar crash had cost. Ah well, they said, there are questions of insurance and responsibility. It could take some time.

There was something else that caught my attention. If it is true that insurance amounts to only about 1% of contractors' costs then surely, in the grand scheme of things, that isn't going to make much difference. So, why the fuss?

2002-08-11T07:13:00.000Z

In the news

Easyjet cancels flights as rota fails
Science fiction edges towards fact - including updates on what happened to the jet pack and the future of the personal helicopter
Special trains for Labour conference - the uplifting news that while everyone else will have to get off and take a coach, politicos will travel non-stop.
Railtrack offers £12m payout to Potters Bar crash victims
Insurance threat to rail work
Who is at fault in bicycle crashes? - Times Letters

2002-08-09T09:01:00.000Z

In the news

Tube hit by flooding
Crippling rail delays on West Coast - Excellent article in the Telegraph on how the disaster unfolded
EasyJet: Our staff can't cope with demand
Bidding war could raise flight prices - the IPPR want the government to auction off slots rather than build new aiports. You can, of course, do both.
Travel agony after London 'monsoon'
'Fine companies for road chaos' - this does seem to come up an awful lot.

2002-08-08T19:57:00.000Z

Compulsory Purchase - oh no, not again

It is a dreadful thing to find oneself disagreeing with Natalie Solent - especially when she is on the side of the angels and I am on the side of filthy lucre - and, let's face it, when she's in a bad mood. But I fear I am going to have to ramble anyway:

Any form of pollution, accompanied by compensation or otherwise is a violation of property rights. Indeed, the same could be said for any (truly) criminal act. Could building an airport simply be dealt with as part of the normal criminal law?

Actually, I don't think development will move away from the South East. In a truly free market I could imagine London becoming a city of 40m or more. If a city 5 times the size of the present one sounds frightening bear in mind that London was once a fifth the size it is now. We survived. By the way I don't think that demand is about speed but about volume.

Andy Wood has written to me enclosing a link to an article from Dr Bruce Benson of Florida State University. The article, "The Mythology of Eminent Doman and Public Provision of Roads" asks the question of whether Eminent Domain (American for Compulsory Purchase) is necessary. This is certainly an issue that pre-occupies a lot of libertarians. Usually, it all boils down to the "holdout" problem (or what I call the Granny Greenteeth problem) the one person who simply will not sell. And usually libertarians will devise various schemes for getting round it e.g. buying in secret, building bridges.

My problem is that all this is theoretical. I am constantly looking for concrete examples of this happening in practice. But there aren't any. With all but a few minor exceptions every canal, every railway and for all I know every road and every airport built in the UK was built with compulsory purchase powers. Even those ardent capitalists at Central Railway have accepted that they can't avoid it.

Dr Benson does give the example of pipelines that have been built without compulsory purchase. Which is interesting. But I am forced to wonder if the only reason they succeeded is that pipelines can go from A to B via just about any route you like while roads etc have to go from A to B via C, D and E.

What I think this debate boils down to is this: I believe that railways, roads and airports are essential and if that means riding roughshod over a few libertarian principles then too bad. I did not enjoy writing that one little bit.

By the way, I do agree with 99% of what Natalie writes.

2002-08-08T08:27:00.000Z

Higher fares are good for you - an update

A couple of weeks ago I wrote that railway companies should be allowed the freedom to set fares as they like. Readers may remember that I used the example of the man on the 0822. I also posted the post to the uk.railway newsgroup. I received some interesting and some tough replies. Lawrence H, who admits to being a railway economist wrote:

The problem with this line of arguement is the timescale required for passengers to react to the higher fares. Moving house takes time. It may become hard to attract professional staff for companies in central London. This will force companies to consider relocation outside of the city and will harm competitiveness and damage the urban economy.

What is really required is a complete reassessment of the pricing of all transport modes to reflect the costs imposed.

Even so, peak rail fares are probably too low and off-peak fares too expensive. A careful realignment could help to spread the peak and reduce over-crowding, forcing companies into more flexible working practices to make more productive use of the transport nfrastructure.

Gitfinger (I suspect it is his real name) wrote:

He won't see it because he would of probably thrown himself under the 0822 by then due to being divorced because he lost his house because couldn't pay the mortgage because he had no money because he lost his job because he couldn't get to work because he couldn't afford a season ticket.

To which Mark Townend replied:

Ah, but in the economists' eyes, merely an unfortunate tragic side effect in acheiving the worthwhile greater benefits overall; just the short term pain whilst the market 'readjusts itself'.

All these writers are making exactly the same point (if in differing degrees of niceness) namely, that there is some pain involved while things adjust to a new status quo. I make the following observations:

Had the state never intervened in the first place we wouldn't be talking about pain. I don't seem to remember widespread suicides in the 1980s because BR (which had greater fare freedom than TOCs do now) put up the prices as demand increased.
We have plenty of pain right now - and it's going to get worse as too-low fares draw more and more people onto overcrowded trains. It's also going to get worse because of fragmentation and franchising.
There is a political question about how fast fares ought to be allowed to rise. If you have a big bang people get hurt. If you phase it in there is a danger it will be reversed. Having said that I would have thought that in a period of about 2 years most people could either move house or change jobs.
Should suicides or the threat of suicides prevent a policy being implemented? How many people right now are changing careers or being made miserable by the daily scrum?
There are two sides to the commuting coin. The first is the commuter. The second is the employer. If some commuters cannot get in then some employers will find themselves short-staffed. They will have a number of options: increase wages, change working hours (assuming that rail companies offer cheaper off-peak travel), or move to the suburbs.
Ah, but mightn't they go bust instead? Some, of course, will. But then again how many businesses are going bust right now because they can't get the right people because they can't face the commute?

2002-08-08T06:12:00.000Z

In the news

Planes' vapour trails affect weather
Tour firm starts budget airline - surely they've missed the (Air)bus?
Hats off to driver's fine challenge - you don't have to pay if the warden isn't wearing a hat. That's just the sort of pettyfogging rule this country needs more of.
Car drivers warned of DVT risk

2002-08-07T06:15:00.000Z

In the news

Ryanair profits take off
Ryanair chief blasts 'Nimby' Brits
Chilled-out Ryanair surfing ahead - no corporate exec who can describe Newquay (or anywhere else) as the "the surf and dope capital of England" can be all bad
Consequences of proposed airport expansion in South East
Russian answer to road congestion - priceless!

2002-08-06T12:34:00.000Z

Have rail fares gone up since privatisation?

It is a common claim by statist groups like Transport 2000 (now, there's an organisation in need of a name change) that rail fares have gone up. They love to point out how a Standard Open Single fare from London to Manchester has gone up from £50 in 1995 to £97 now. But that is only one fare. What about all the others?

The only way we can work it out is by referring to global statistics, specifically annual fare revenue and annual personal travel.

In 1994/5 passenger kilometres totalled 28.7bn and fare revenue totalled £2.494bn (2001 prices), which gives us an average cost per kilometre travelled of 8.7p.

In 2000/1 passenger kilometres totalled 39.2bn and fare revenue totalled £3.354bn, which gives us an average cost per kilometre travelled of 8.6p.

In other words the average cost for travelling one kilometre (or one mile for that matter) is more or less the same as it was pre-privatisation.

It ought to be pointed out that calculating passenger kilometres is an inexact science. How many journeys does a season ticket holder actually take? How far does a Travelcard holder actuall travel. But one assumes that the inaccuracies are more or less the same in both cases and so cancel one another out.

So, how do we account for near 100% fare increases like London to Manchester? The answer is simple: though many fares have gone up many others have come down. If you are prepared to book ahead you can get all sorts of deals (I did London to Manchester for £19 return). Furthermore, London commuter fares are held to inflation minus 1%. Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons for the current state of overcrowding in London and the South East.

2002-08-05T14:07:00.000Z

Does congestion charging work?

I was not entirely surprised to hear Ken Livingstone say that if Congestion Charging in London failed he would scrap it. First of all, it's a Ken thing to say and secondly, what do we mean by success? There is bound to be some sort of reduction in traffic even if it is just through the inconvenience of having to go through the barriers - so there will be something that Ken can point to in order to claim success.

But it did get me thinking. Surely, we know the answer already? After all, similar schemes have been tried out in Trondheim and Singapore. What's been the outcome there? I decided to do a little search. This is what I came up with:

The Trondheim Toll Ring : Avoiding the Trolls of Tolls - Richard Cook, general introduction
Something from America
Something called the Progress Project
Yet another general introduction
Road Pricing - The Toll Ring of Trondheim/Norway - beware, funded by the EU
Road Pricing Takes its Toll - Shannon Thompson. Another general introduction from a Canadian. Shame about the politics though.
The Bergen Toll Ring
Transport for London Briefing - I'll look forward to reading this
Road pricing around the world - Navidski and Oswald
Toll financing of roads - the Norwegian experiences

General observations about the Trondheim scheme are that:

the intention was to raise revenue, not to reduce congestion
it seems to have gained a reasonable degree of support
few before and after statistics are available
it seems to have reduced congestion a bit
it seems to have increased bus use a bit

Most of these concern the Norwegian experience - I will look into the Singaporean case when I get the time.

2002-08-05T08:37:00.000Z

In the news

Jeremy Clarkson: To stay alive, you’re better sorry than safe - very good, very funny
'Bollocks' Johnson, mobile cycle path - Boris Johnsongate - more revelations
EU to make drivers pay for cyclists' accidents
Connex looking to be loved
Ken: I'll scrap car tax if it doesn't work

2002-08-04T14:31:00.000Z

Congestion charging - just do it!

In the report on the extension of congestion charging to towns and cities across the country one paragraph in particular made me groan:

In Bristol the council proposes to charge £1 a day - but not before 2007. A spokesman said: "We want to make sure that public transport is improved first."

First of all, there's that vague and confusing term "public transport". Does it mean a)state transport, or b)transport available for use by the public, or c)mass transport? I feel Misuse of the English Language #3 coming on. In this case, unless I am very much mistaken, they mean buses which are definitely b), sometimes c) and theoretically never, though in practice almost always a).

Secondly, is it really necessary to wait? If the state is managing the expansion of buses then there is, indeed, likely to be a wait. But if it were left to a genuinely free market ie not just privatised, then bus operators would intervene pretty quickly to satisfy the gap in the market. Surely, they can. If the NFFF airlines can fill a gap in the market in a matter of a few years I am sure bus operators can do it far faster.

Thirdly, should this term mean buses? Couldn't jitneys supply a better and cheaper alternative?

Fourthly, isn't it depressing how complicated everything is? We have rules banning jitneys. We have rules on where buses can an can't stop. We have reserved bus lanes. All this adds up to no end of bureaucracy and delay.

2002-08-04T06:53:00.000Z

What's new

London Underground: Comparison with New York Subway - interesting piece if you like that sort of thing - which I do!
Paying for parking by text
'Real risk' to air safety warns union
Cities follow London on congestion charge
Letters to the Editor: Give way to Lycra louts - worth reading. Quite ferocious. This is what you get when the state owns the road.